Teresa Walsh

Following a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding concerning pharmaceutical product liability, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining certification against one defendant but not the other.

The court considered Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary principles governing costs in class proceedings.

While the defendants argued the plaintiff’s claim should be substantially reduced due to partial success and limited certification of common issues, the court rejected most of these arguments.

However, because certification was not granted against one defendant, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed costs by approximately 20 percent.

Costs of $300,000 all-inclusive were awarded payable forthwith.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging that a prescription smoking‑cessation drug caused neuropsychiatric adverse events and that the manufacturer breached its duty to warn consumers and physicians.

The court considered the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court held that there was some basis in fact for a duty to warn claim against the Canadian manufacturer based on expert and anecdotal evidence of adverse psychiatric events.

The proposed class definition and common issues were amended to focus on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and the adequacy of product monograph warnings between 2007 and 2010.

The proceeding was certified against the Canadian manufacturer but not against the U.S. parent company, whose involvement lacked a factual basis.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning alleged neuropsychiatric side effects of the smoking cessation drug Champix, the defendants brought a refusals motion seeking further production of medical and related records from proposed representative plaintiffs during cross‑examinations conducted for a certification motion.

The defendants argued the additional records were necessary to challenge whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and certification criteria.

The court accepted that the requested information had some relevance but held that the scope of cross‑examination on a certification motion is narrower than discovery and must comply with proportionality principles.

Given that the plaintiffs had already produced medical records and answered extensive questions, compelling further production would improperly extend the inquiry into the merits of the case and impose a disproportionate burden.

The motion to compel further answers and productions was therefore dismissed.